There is much debate on whether or not “obscenity” is being aired on Pakistan’s private television channels. In terms of news reporting, too, some channels are accused of having “gone too far.” Two major broadcasters were on Friday forced by the government to cease broadcast.

Underpinning the argument is the question of whether such programming ought to be “allowed”, which then begs the question of who should do the allowing. Some believe that the state should have the authority to pull the plug on ‘unacceptable’ programming. This presupposes not only a consensus on exactly what is objectionable, but also that a very clear line distinguishes that from the acceptable.

Others, however, argue that the channels need to develop their own codes of conduct – some will naturally be more liberal/vocal than others –and the final control ought to lie with the viewer. This means that every viewer has the right to not watch the programme/channel that his personal values deem objectionable.

The former course of action, that of the state playing Big Brother, is dangerous because such authoritarianism can rapidly spin out of control. Since there is no consensus – in fact, there cannot possibly be total societal agreement on such issues – on exactly where the line lies between the objectionable and acceptable, it always comes down to the persons making the judgement-call.

Our newspapers are full of illustrations of the fact that what is obscenity to one man is a right to another: thousands of Pakistanis believe that allowing their wives to vote is objectionable; thousands also believe that a woman’s right to feel the sun on her face is a violation of the normal codes of decency; a conservative government in the NWFP felt that cinema halls undermine societal values while certain ‘miscreants’ are convinced that the act of listening to music constitutes a sin punishable by bomb blast.

Giving the state the authority to shut down an avenue of expression – in this instance, television programming or channels – is a dangerous precedent because governments change, as does their nature. Today, beards may wag in approval if, for example, the government bars ‘obscenities’ such as fashion shows. But that gives the next government, or any one down the line, the potential authority to bar all unveiled women – or even women altogether – from television if that government’s ideological nature so dictates. To flip the thought around, what if some future government that wanted to drag this country, kicking and screaming, into entirely another direction, used the precedent to bar religious programming or to bar veils on television.

The point is that the freedom of expression works for all sides, as does the right to choose: where there is FTV and MTV, there is also QTV and Peace TV. All have an equal right to exist and all viewers have the right to choose.

The same case can be made for news channels. Ten days ago, the government decided that all the independent news channels were objectionable. Now, all but Geo and ARY have been declared kosher. With this precedent set, what is to prevent another head of state – who acts with the authority of the state – from arbitrarily deciding tomorrow or ten years from now that X sentence on Y channel was totally beyond the pale and that constitutes reason enough to pull the plug?

Today, channels are being targeted for stated reasons of poor journalism and bringing into disrepute certain institutions that I must, as the law now stands, refer to only as the Unmentionables. A number of people appear to agree with the government’s action: certainly, there were times when it appeared that invisible lines were crossed and barriers of good taste breached. However, what if at some point in the future, “poor journalism” is redefined as reporting on corrupt politicians or armed conflict within the country? The decision then, as now, will be made by a mere handful of people who have the might of the state and precedent on their side.

This does not mean that the media industry should consider itself above the law. Codes of conduct and regulations are necessary — up to a point and implemented through the courts. The purpose of law is to create a system of checks and balance, where legitimate action can be taken against any party that breaches a law that is reasonable, justifiable and was framed after due debate. The law must not be based on the whims and likings of whoever happens to be in charge.

However, the current status of the law and its representatives in Pakistan is clear for all to see. Arguing for it to be applied to the media in sprit and theory is doubtless an exercise in frustrating futility. —hmumtaz@dawn.com